Trading up makes more sense for OT rather than QB for us

[BAFGA]

If Snyderatto draft a QB in the first round this year, this will be the 3rd "project" QB that they have drafted (Ramsey, Campbell, ______ ).

I just see more of the same if Sanchez is drafted by the Redskins here. It won't get any better and it will be yet another year that they put together OL and DL sloppily.

[Oldfan]

If Snyderatto draft a QB in the first round this year, this will be the 3rd "project" QB that they have drafted (Ramsey, Campbell, ______ )...I just see more of the same if Sanchez is drafted by the Redskins here. It won't get any better and it will be yet another year that they put together OL and DL sloppily.

Dan and Vinny picked Ramsey. Spurrier and Gibbs didn't want him and gave him little chance to succeed.

Gibbs picked Campbell for his Coryell scheme because he was reminded of Doug Williams. He ignored Jason's flawed mechanics.

If the Skins draft Sanchez, it will be because Jim Zorn thinks he has the potential to be a perennial all-pro and a QB who fits his scheme well.

[Chump Bailey]

IMO, the only player worth trading up for is Sanchez. Next Saturday should be interesting.

[redskins2473]

Trading up in the draft is generally a bad idea, but there are exceptions to every rule. So, I can't agree with your absolute position, "no matter what the grade on the player."

Not long ago, I did a thread on Belichick's methods. Since 2000, the Patriots have traded up twice. Once for Moroney...I'm fairly sure...can't recall the other... but they did it twice in nine years.

The only thing they do differently with the draft is draft players that fit their scheme better than the competition. They don't keep expensive vets. They trade them for draft picks; and sometimes they spend picks for vets, but when they do, they get value.

Maroney was the 21st selection in the first round. Moving up is always an option but my comment referred to moving up into the high first round. Because of the guaranteed money and loss of other picks for compensation, moving up to draft a player that has no nfl experience in the high first round is not advisable.

I agree there are exceptions to every rule but with the way players move around in free agency these days, even if you move up and acquire a premier talent, there is a small window to get the value out of the pick. Once the rookie contract expires, you're back to paying market conditions and have lost other picks in the process.

Again--the Patriots can stockpile picks because they have the luxury of an already-filled CENTERPIECE leader/HoF Franchise QB.

If Brady quit this offseason after Cassel was traded, what do you think they would do? Trade back for a mediocre QB prospect or try to grab they thought was special? Also, they had Seymour who was a very high pick. Again, foundational line talent---you can then stock picks because you've got a centerpiece for one level of your (defense, in this case.)

I agree that a QB like Brady can hide a lot of warts on a team but to imply he is the reason they do not need to trade up and can stockpile picks is a stretch. Playing devils advocate however, the Steelers only top 10 selection was Burress and they did not have a QB of Roethlisberger's caliber yet still managed to be a perennial playoff caliber team with again, mid to late first round picks. I'm not saying that acquiring a player by moving up won't produce superior talent. My point is that it is not advisable, especially into the high first round because of compensation both in terms of dollars and picks. I guess to make it a little clearer, I'm no talking about 3 or 4 spots in a draft. I'm talking about a 10+ spot jump where a team will lose multiple first day picks or a future 1st round selection. The skins are in an intersesting position because they are relatively close to the top 10.. Moving into say Jacksonville's spot would not be that cost prohibitive but with their limited picks, still not advisable.

The trade up to get Sanchez scenario makes perfect sense. It's the anti-Snyder-of-the-past way of thinking save the fact that he'd have to sell the ranch (as far as draft picks)to do it, which is typical for this organization. The difference is the fact that he'd be giving up picks to get a pretty damn good qb prospect from the draft that some project to be an above average, maybe even an elite, qb down the road. We're not talking about going after an aging FA qb which is what Danny has done in the past.

Hmmm...Sounds eerily similar to the rational to move up to acquire a rising Jason Campbell. In terms of return vs. lost compensation, that has not worked out so well for the skins.

[Oldfan]

Maroney was the 21st selection in the first round. Moving up is always an option but my comment referred to moving up into the high first round. Because of the guaranteed money and loss of other picks for compensation, moving up to draft a player that has no nfl experience in the high first round is not advisable.

I agree there are exceptions to every rule but with the way players move around in free agency these days, even if you move up and acquire a premier talent, there is a small window to get the value out of the pick. Once the rookie contract expires, you're back to paying market conditions and have lost other picks in the process.

Moving up to the top five is a high-risk proposition which should be considered only if there is high reward offered in exchange. I can't imagine a scenario making it worthwhile unless the move is for a top-rated QB since the position's importance is a multiplier of value.

QBs like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning can be resigned at below market rates with a couple of years remaining on their contracts because of the insurance against the risk of a career ending injury and because they realize that their success, more than any other position, is very much dependent on their support system.

[redskins2473]

Moving up to the top five is a high-risk proposition which should be considered only if there is high reward offered in exchange. I can't imagine a scenario making it worthwhile unless the move is for a top-rated QB since the position's importance is a multiplier of value.

QBs like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning can be resigned at below market rates with a couple of years remaining on their contracts because of the insurance against the risk of a career ending injury and because they realize that their success, more than any other position, is very much dependent on their support system.

I was trying to think of a draft scenario for a QB that would warrant moving up. I guess it depends on how strongly a team feels about the player. The Giants moved to get Eli but in all honesty, the Superbowl victory does not validate that move for me. I think Rivers could have performed similarly and the Giants largely paid for the Manning pedigree vs. a truly great player.

Another comparison of that magnitude would be the 2001 draft when the Falcons traded up to acquire Michael Vick. Jail time aside, his production on the field vs. Brees did not warrant the move.

Of the remaining QB's drafted high in the first round (top 10) in the past 10 years, Carson Palmer and McNabb are the only proven products. If the gap is wide between the top QB prospect and the rest of the field, I can see perhaps making a move but that type of disparity would create enormous demand since there are always teams that need a QB and may offer more than fair value to acquire a super prospect. Doesn't hurt to explore options but trading up is always going to be expensive and a risk. I don't trust the decision makers on the skins in that type of high risk/reward arena.

Agreed on resigning players at below market rates but they are still going to be among the highest paid at their position. Any savings counts and investing in your own, productive players is good policy. Something else that the skins have been lacking in.

[TheLongshot]

Besides, I don't disagree. An OT is our greatest immediate need. I just am not as concerned with filling immediate needs as much as I am improving our team as much as possible for the long haul.

Bottom line: You could be right. Maybe Dan's win-now goal will mirror the win-now goals of most ES members to fill the immediate need for an OT. However, if Jim Zorn sees Sanchez as a grade A talent who fits his scheme nicely, I think the Skins would be remiss if they did not make a serious bid. If the scouting reports are accurate, Sanchez sounds like another Drew Brees type with more talent than Drew.

So, why isn't OT also addressing a long-term need as well? Considering that a lot of people think that the OL is long overdue for a major overhaul, why does it make Dan foolish to trade up for an OT? Personally, I don't think getting a QB will do much good when you still need to get more offensive linemen, particularly when you know that at some point in the near future that you will need to find Samuels' replacement.

Also, you make an assumption about how they are rating Sanchez. Just because they are giving him a hard look doesn't mean that at the end of the day that he is going to be rated as a guy that they should unleash all stops to get. Personally, he doesn't look like such a can't miss prospect that a team can feel comfortable selling the house for. Both him and Stafford have some serious questions, Stafford with his inconsistency and Sanchez with his lack of experience.

Also, one of my arguments is that if Campbell does fail, we will be in a similar position next year with reportedly a better crop of QBs coming out next year. It seems wiser to me to work on the weaknesses we have and let Campbell try to prove himself and figure out how far Brennan can improve himself rather than spending a lot on a QB you don't know if you really need and then hurting yourself in not having the ammunition to fix your weaknesses.

[Oldfan]

... I don't trust the decision makers on the skins in that type of high risk/reward arena...

I don't regard Dan and Vinny as clowns who would ignore the advice of their scouts and their head coach on the grading of a QB. I think our scounting system is above average and I regard Zorn's opinion on QBs highly. So, I think we take less risk drafting a QB than most teams.

The failure rate for QBs drafted in the first-round is deceptively high because those QBs usually go to lousy teams with poor support systems like Ramsey to the Redskins. Would he have been a bust if drafted by the Patriots?

[TheLongshot]

The failure rate for QBs drafted in the first-round is deceptively high because those QBs usually go to lousy teams with poor support systems like Ramsey to the Redskins. Would he have been a bust if drafted by the Patriots?

Considering that Ramsey hasn't even been close to being named a starter any place else, I think it is pretty self-evident that Ramsey probably would have been a bust no matter where he went. I also disagree with your assertion that he never had a chance with Gibbs. He had every chance to show his stuff in practice and in preseason and he always was lacking.

[Oldfan]

So, why isn't OT also addressing a long-term need as well?

Never said that it didn't.

Considering that a lot of people think that the OL is long overdue for a major overhaul, why does it make Dan foolish to trade up for an OT?

Never said that it did. We aren't discussing that scenario in isolation.

Personally, I don't think getting a QB will do much good when you still need to get more offensive linemen, particularly when you know that at some point in the near future that you will need to find Samuels' replacement.

I think you're wrong. If a team can upgrade the highly important QB position, it should be done whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Also, you make an assumption about how they are rating Sanchez. Just because they are giving him a hard look doesn't mean that at the end of the day that he is going to be rated as a guy that they should unleash all stops to get.

I've made no assumptions about Sanchez. I stated a conditional premise -- if the Redskins have an OT and a QB both graded as potential perennial all-pros THEN they should make a serious bid for the much more valuable QB.

Also, one of my arguments is that if Campbell does fail, we will be in a similar position next year with reportedly a better crop of QBs coming out next year.

This is based on your opinion of the draft, it's not an argument that's relevant if the Redskins think Sanchez has perennial all-pro ptential and fits their scheme well.

I don't have much faith in the internet scouting reports, but if the consensus on Sanchez is accurate, he sounds too good to be true -- like Drew Brees with much more talent.

It seems wiser to me to work on the weaknesses we have and let Campbell try to prove himself and figure out how far Brennan can improve himself rather than spending a lot on a QB you don't know if you really need and then hurting yourself in not having the ammunition to fix your

weaknesses.

In Snyder's shoes, I'd be guided by Jim Zorn's opinions on these things.

[[[ghost]]]

It doesn't matter who we have under center, if our OL can't give him time.

If we build a fantastic OL, even Colt could put up huge numbers. Campbell may have had the same case of Ramsey-itis, where he's weakened by his OL struggles. But any decent Rookie QB with accuracy will excel behind a great OL.

[KokoMike]

I don't think we need to waste another early pick on a QB. We need more power on this team.

Campbell is a functional QB. Brennan in my opinion has playmaking ability. We need to get both of these guys up to speed. There is no time to waste on more developmental players.

Look, teams like the Eagles are powering up on the line. We need power, not flash for cash.

[Oldfan]

Considering that Ramsey hasn't even been close to being named a starter any place else, I think it is pretty self-evident that Ramsey probably would have been a bust no matter where he went. I also disagree with your assertion that he never had a chance with Gibbs. He had every chance to show his stuff in practice and in preseason and he always was lacking.

If you can argue sincerely that Patrick Ramsey's career was developed properly, then I'll listen to your argument that his not becoming a starter elsewhere is proof that he would have been a bust no matter who might have drafted him.

With the small sample exception of Todd Collins's four games in 2007, I have yet to see a Redskin QB perform better when they were firing real bullets than Ramsey since he was drafted in 2002.

[Oldfan]

];6330899']It doesn't matter who we have under center' date=' if our OL can't give him time.[/quote']

Of course it matters. Some QBs handle pressure better than others.

[TheLongshot]

If you can argue sincerely that Patrick Ramsey's career was developed properly, then I'll listen to your argument that his not becoming a starter elsewhere is proof that he would have been a bust no matter who might have drafted him.

With the small sample exception of Todd Collins's four games in 2007, I have yet to see a Redskin QB perform better when they were firing real bullets than Ramsey since he was drafted in 2002.

Well, there's a sticky wicket. Course, you are the one who says it takes less than a season to develop a 1st round QB. You'd think with the two years under Gibbs that he would have been ready for prime time, but yet he wasn't. There are those who claim that Gibbs never gave him a chance, but he had his chance with the Jets and was considered wanting. Ramsey isn't a complete failure since he's continued his career as a backup, but I don't see him doing better elsewhere, particularly since he wasn't lacking in weapons.

Getting back to your other comment, I think I see where you are coming from now. What your comments reflect is your opinion that it is stupid to trade up (except, apparently, if it is a franchise QB, then the team should do whatever it takes to get that guy. :whoknows: ). So yes, in your viewpoint you do think the FO is being stupid if they go in the direction I'm suggesting. I don't necessarily subscribe to that viewpoint, depending on what they actually do. It certainly would be stupid if they don't do it and it ends up being the factor that keeps them from going over the top. For the want of a nail, the kingdom was lost.

[Oldfan]

Well, there's a sticky wicket. Course, you are the one who says it takes less than a season to develop a 1st round QB.

Never said that. I said that the QB with the potential to be a perennial all-pro can do it in one season or less. Ramsey came in raw from Tulane, one year under a QB coach like Jim Zorn would have been wise. He would have fit perfectly into Belichick's scheme which Matt Bowen calls a "WCO out of the shotgun" and the "most QB friendly in the NFL."

You'd think with the two years under Gibbs that he would have been ready for prime time, but yet he wasn't.

Why would you think that? Gibbs did nothing for Patrick and didn't do much to develop Campbell whom he drafted to replace Ramsey. It was Al Saunders who pointed out the flaws in Jason's mechanics that were limiting him. Jim Zorn said the same thing as Al.

Getting back to your other comment, I think I see where you are coming from now. What your comments reflect is your opinion that it is stupid to trade up (except, apparently, if it is a franchise QB, then the team should do whatever it takes to get that guy.

No, tradeups are dumb as a general rule, but there are exceptions and not only for QBs. I never said or implied "whatever it takes" for a franchise QB. Every move has its limits.

[redskins2473]

I don't regard Dan and Vinny as clowns who would ignore the advice of their scouts and their head coach on the grading of a QB. I think our scounting system is above average and I regard Zorn's opinion on QBs highly. So, I think we take less risk drafting a QB than most teams....

I wouldn't say they are clowns either since they've made some good selections with the higher rounds but limited starters have emerged from second day picks. That is where elite organizations earn their worth. I can understand your point with Zorn's ability to judge QB's since he did develop Hasselbeck but you also have to factor in that Synder and Cerrato may not value his opinion enough to sway a decision on a draft picks worth. Gibbs had that type of influence but their are likely many voices involved in the selection process now.

[Oldfan]

I can understand your point with Zorn's ability to judge QB's since he did develop Hasselbeck but you also have to factor in that Synder and Cerrato may not value his opinion enough to sway a decision on a draft picks worth. Gibbs had that type of influence but their are likely many voices involved in the selection process now.

Joe Gibbs had the final say on all roster moves, but I was commenting on Jim Zorn speaking as an authority on the evaluation of QBs to fit his scheme, not on all draft picks. If Dan and Vinny don't value his opinion on the selection of a QB, I'd regard that as monumental stupidity.

[redskins2473]

Joe Gibbs had the final say on all roster moves, but I was speaking of Jim Zorn speaking as an authority on the evaluation of QBs to fit his scheme, not on all draft picks. If Dan and Vinny don't value his opinion on the selection of a QB, I'd regard that as monumental stupidity.

Well, if that is the case, then how do you explain the organization's pursuit of Cutler? On the one hand, Zorn has said all the right things i.e JC is his guy and he doesn't want another QB. If he is steadfastly in Jason's corner as he suggest, then Snyder and Cerrato obviously decided it was worth it to overrule his opinion at great cost with two first round picks and what would inevitably be a new, cap unfriendly contract. If Zorn is not sold on Campbell but says he is, then he is being somewhat disengenuous. Doesn't appear to be an organization on the same page unless I'm missing something. Add the perceived pursuit of Sanchez to the mix and there are a lot of different signals coming out of Redskins Park. It will be interesting to see what finally unfolds on draft day.

[TheLongshot]

Never said that. I said that the QB with the potential to be a perennial all-pro can do it in one season or less. Ramsey came in raw from Tulane, one year under a QB coach like Jim Zorn would have been wise. He would have fit perfectly into Belichick's scheme which Matt Bowen calls a "WCO out of the shotgun" and the "most QB friendly in the NFL."

An assumption on your part, but it is hard to talk about what ifs

Why would you think that? Gibbs did nothing for Patrick and didn't do much to develop Campbell whom he drafted to replace Ramsey. It was Al Saunders who pointed out the flaws in Jason's mechanics that were limiting him. Jim Zorn said the same thing as Al.

It is hard to say if Gibbs did do anything for Ramsey, but it sure did seem like that all the resources went to making Ramsey a starter in 2005, including all the starting lineup snaps in preseason. As for Campbell, I wouldn't expect much attention to a guy who was third string and who was going to be running the scout team and nowhere close to being in the starting lineup.

As for Saunders, his mechanics might have been limiting for what Saunders wanted, but maybe not for Gibbs' offense. There were certainly many differences of opinion there.

No, tradeups are dumb as a general rule, but there are exceptions and not only for QBs. I never said or implied "whatever it takes" for a franchise QB. Every move has its limits.

Well, you seem to imply that any trade-up for an OT is stupid and any trade-up for Sanchez would be a smart move. Could you tell me where I was led astray?